Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The precise amount of acceptable risk is debatable, but there is a principle in risk management that low probability high impact events should be planned for as much as high probability low impact events.

When an apartment building is discovered to have been built without regard to the fire dampening regulations, the people in that apartment building are told they have to leave and can not live there until remedial action takes place. This is because even though a fire in that apartment building is something that might never happen, the consequences of a fire in a large building that hasn't been built to code can be catastrophic.

This is the 'alarmist' message. Not that climate change is definitely going to be catastrophic, but that there is enough uncertainty and the fact that if we reach certain tipping points, the consequences are irreversible, that we should concentrate on mitigating the risk and take it seriously.

Perhaps a look at the failed catastrophic predictions thus far and a comparison with actual observations would be useful here, after we've just seen how statistically insignificant theoretical power savings were being exaggerated into a "significant" figure purely to advance the climate cause.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105991553&postcount=246



Here's a list of faulty predictions.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/


Are there many successful predictions, now that we're decades on since Hansen really set the ball rolling?

Of course there's so much climate justice baggage that's after being tagged on by now that it would be difficult if not impossible for those with their socialist and world economy transforming agendas to press the brakes for a reality check.

Gaoth Lag

SyranBruen dismisses it as rubbish just as Gaoth Laidir did. Oh and Gaoth Laidir, good lad selecting the bits from papers that back up his arguments neglecting other passages that put a very different spin on things.

nacho libre

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

SyranBruen dismisses it as rubbish just as Gaoth Laidir did. Oh and Gaoth Laidir, good lad selecting the bits from papers that back up his arguments neglecting other passages that put a very different spin on things.

Did you miss this post:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105995996&postcount=268

Surely if you have information you feel can sway the argument in your favour, you would be keen to share it.

sryanbruen

nacho libre wrote: »

Did you miss this post:


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105995996&postcount=268

Surely if you have information you feel can sway the argument in your favour, you would be keen to share it.

The thing is, he doesn't. His post that I stated was rubbish made no sense at all and there is zero information that points towards it - where did some of the names he mentioned also come from like? There's plenty of times in Ireland where there has been a long run of storms. We've only been naming windstorms officially for three seasons now, that doesn't mean we haven't had long stormy seasons before - in fact, there have been far far stormier seasons. Just imagine how many named storms 2013-14 would have for one example, or 1989-90 for another.

I know this is off topic to much of the climate change discussion but what Gaoth Lag said is a whole load of tosh that is not worth being discussed or argued about, especially given there's zero evidence.

Gaoth Lag

Zero evidence or are you not looking properly. Poor research I would’ve thought.

sryanbruen

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Zero evidence or are you not looking properly. Poor research I would’ve thought.

You're the one on your own here 'cause you can't showcase evidence to back yourself up.

Gaoth Lag

I already stated I wouldn’t share thanks to Gaoth Laidirs bad attitude.

nacho libre

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Zero evidence or are you not looking properly. Poor research I would’ve thought.

Sryan's knowledge of Ireland's weather history is very good.
Anyway the onus is on you to provide evidence for your assertion. Perhaps it's part of your secret treasure trove of information you can't divulge to the rest of us.

dense

After all this time, this is what the UNIPCC is saying about it's own level of knowledge on glacier volumes:

1. What assessments of global glacier volume and of its changes in recent decades are available? How uncertain are
they? Are monitored glaciers representative of the total glacier mass balance? What is the level of the associated
uncertainty (for the past and future)?


A complete inventory of the Earth’s glaciers does not yet exist.

Estimates of the overall ice volume of glaciers and ice
caps therefore contain large uncertainties.

Yet, improved extrapolation and scaling efforts have constrained the total
mass in glaciers and ice caps to be slightly above 0.5 m sea level equivalent.

Our current understanding of the recent
past and the actual rates of changes have improved since the AR4, and are within acceptable ranges of uncertainty.

However, uncertainties are still quite large for the future.

The spatial distribution of existing glacier mass balance
monitoring is not representative of the global glacier coverage contributing to sea level rise.

There is an urgent need for improved data from the largest glaciers and ice caps. Further monitoring of mass balance is also required in poorly
sampled climatic regions, as is homogenization and quality control of existing mass balance series.

Their "knowledge base" is almost non existent!


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/SLW_WorkshopReport_kuala_lumpur.pdf

Meteorite58

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

I already stated I wouldn’t share thanks to Gaoth Laidirs bad attitude.

Mod Note:
Gaoth Lag has received a warning for being uncivil.

Gaoth Lag you need to read the forum charter before making any more posts.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056531690

Gaoth Lag

Warning accepted. I’ll post links to the papers I was referring to in the morning.

Meteorite58

sryanbruen wrote: »

Not at all, what a load of rubbish.

Mod Note: Please show courtesy when posting and refrain from making harsh statements.

sryanbruen

Meteorite58 wrote: »

Mod Note: Please show courtesy when posting and refrain from making harsh statements.

I have edited my post with some evidence.

Akrasia

sryanbruen wrote: »

I have edited my post with some evidence.

This year hasn't been especially bad for storms, apart from a few fairly bad flooding events, and ex tropical storm Ophelia which was far from a normal meteorological event given where it formed and how far it travelled north while maintaining major hurricane force winds, but according to John Sweeney from NUI Maynooth, the winter of 2013/2014 was the stormiest in 140 years in both Ireland and the UK, and the winter of 2015/2016 was the wettest on record for much of the country.

Its a very legitimate concern that the storms hitting Ireland every winter appear to be getting stronger and wetter and are changing from the typical atlantic depressions that we have been exposed to in the past.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

This year hasn't been especially bad for storms, apart from a few fairly bad flooding events, and ex tropical storm Ophelia which was far from a normal meteorological event given where it formed and how far it travelled north while maintaining major hurricane force winds, but according to John Sweeney from NUI Maynooth, the winter of 2013/2014 was the stormiest in 140 years in both Ireland and the UK, and the winter of 2015/2016 was the wettest on record for much of the country.

Its a very legitimate concern that the storms hitting Ireland every winter appear to be getting stronger and wetter and are changing from the typical atlantic depressions that we have been exposed to in the past.

Appear to be getting stronger. Any evidence of that?

Changing from typical Atlantic depressions. Any evidence of that either? Remember, Debbie (not a hurricane) in 1961 was very similar to Ophelia (not a hurricane) but way stronger and set wind records that stand to this day. It's been proven that Ophelia was not linked to climate change. The area of warm-anomaly sea waters where it formed and stayed was just a few months earlier several degrees colder than average. Frances in 1980 made it almost as far east (just 350 km short of Ophelia). Not to mention the Big Wind in Jan 1839.

When it comes to climate, Prof. Sweeney likes to paint the most pessimistic picture whenever he can.

Gaoth Lag

Here's Prof. Sweeny's excellent article in full.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ireland-is-already-encountering-climate-change-and-its-going-to-get-worse-expert-warns-36548645.html

dense

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

When it comes to climate, Prof. Sweeney likes to paint the most pessimistic picture whenever he can.

Here he is agreeing with Pat Kenny recently that humans breathing out is part of the problem...........(towards the end of the clip)

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/Highlights_from_The_Pat_Kenny_Show/171314/The_global_cost_of_rising_Arctic_temperatures

Even the most creative of alarmists will agree that that is NOT "part of the problem".


https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide.htm

dense

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Here's Prof. Sweeny's excellent article in full.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ireland-is-already-encountering-climate-change-and-its-going-to-get-worse-expert-warns-36548645.html

Bit odd that.

In your link he says:

"But in order to reverse the inevitable consequences of climate change, the world will have to de-carbonise by 50pc within the next 20 years."

And with Pat Kenny a month earlier he was clearly saying the world economy will have to decarbonise (and not by 50pc) by 2040 in order to avoid it.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/Highlights_from_The_Pat_Kenny_Show/171314/The_global_cost_of_rising_Arctic_temperatures

Maybe he just forgot to mention the 50pc.

Did you know that he's a lead author for the UNIPCC?

sryanbruen

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Here's Prof. Sweeny's excellent article in full.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ireland-is-already-encountering-climate-change-and-its-going-to-get-worse-expert-warns-36548645.html

Well for a start, this is from a newspaper which are a very unreliable source regarding pretty much everything there is. Everything is exaggerated, especially when it comes to meteorology. Obviously, tabloids are far worse than broadsheets with exaggeration but I still do not consider all newspapers a reliable source. They do anything to sell to oblivious or naive people.

Secondly, the below quote is a bit misleading. Every 10 years, the meteorological agencies produce a 30 year average - which is based on the preceding 30 years - to compare mean temperatures, rainfall etc with and see how they differ from the averages. 1981-2010 is the latest 30 year average dataset, the next one will be 1991-2020.

The Irish Mean Temperature (IMT) is a dataset we use to see how warm or cold a month is in Ireland - basically the Irish counterpart of the Central England Temperature (CET). Each decade has been unique for the most part in regards to IMTs. For example, the 1990s/2000s were the warmest decades since the 1940s after a rather cold 1960s & 1980s with a mixed bag in the 1970s. However, the 2010s has taken a death in the mean temperatures for Ireland. It has been a far cooler decade than the 1990s and 2000s. It's been the coolest decade since the 1980s. The IMT for the 2010s up to 2017 stands at 9.8c approximately (it's a definite 9.7c up to 2016), compared to 10.2c and 10.3c in the 1990s and 2000s respectively. I don't see any climate change in regards to this, just the Irish climate being its normal self - either caused by solar activity being far weaker than the previous few solar cycles or just the climate being in a cooler period for now like the 1960s and 1980s - though not as cold (yet) as those decades.

“Everywhere in the country today is half a degree warmer than it was 30 years ago,” he said during a discussion on Ireland’s progress in meeting carbon emission reduction targets.

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Just a note too. Typically we have 2-3 storms from the start of the year until now. This year we've had seven in quick succession Georgina, Fionn, Brian, Eleanor, Hector, Larry and Geoffrey. Coincidence or climate change right before our eyes?

I quoted your original comment here again because it's very irrelevant and misleading. Like I had said in my edited reply to you with evidence, storms Hector and Larry have not happened - Geoffrey isn't even part of the storm names list for 2017-18 so I have zero clue where you got them from.

“But the real climate change impacts in Ireland will come from rainfall changes,” he said.

“There will be increased winter rainfall for the west of Ireland in particular and decreased summer rainfall in the east where (the majority of) our people are located and where public water supply will become a growing concern,” he told the committee.

He warned that the extreme weather episodes we have recently witnessed – including flooding in Galway city and Mountmellick, Co Laois – will “change much more quickly and the extremes will change much more radically than the mean.”

For example, the winter of 2013-14 was “the stormiest winter in both Ireland the UK for at least the last 143 years – that’s an extreme event,” he said.

The winter of 2015-16 was also the wettest on record in much of the country.

See the problem when we say things like it being the driest on record, the wettest on record etc, we can only compare back to a certain period. We don't have millions of years of data - as somebody had falsely suggested on this thread. The CET is the longest dataset in the entire world going back to 1659. However, the further you go back, the more inaccurate these records tend to be and can be quite skeptical sometimes, namely months like May 1833 or June 1846 for example which were abnormally hot months - as the CET tells us.

If you look at the EWP series on the Hadley Centre site (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/ranked_seasonal/HadEWP_ranked_ssn.dat), you can see that the wettest Winters are fairly spread out and not all tightly packed together. However, the series only goes back to 1766 so who knows that Winters would have been even wetter before hand?

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Here's Prof. Sweeny's excellent article in full.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/ireland-is-already-encountering-climate-change-and-its-going-to-get-worse-expert-warns-36548645.html

Yep, not much to worry about in there really. The actual extent of rainfall changes are very small.

Any sign of that research you promised us this morning? Dying to read it.

Gaoth Lag

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yep, not much to worry about in there really. The actual extent of rainfall changes are very small.

Any sign of that research you promised us this morning? Dying to read it.

I’m reviewing a portion of it.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

I’m reviewing a portion of it.

I think I know what your deal is now. Nice one

dense

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

I’m reviewing a portion of it.

If you're stuck this is a handy tool, accepted at some of the best establishments.

https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/

Gaoth Lag

Let’s stick to the topic guys.

I still think although Professor Sweeney’s article contradicts what he said to Pat Kenny slightly he’s been fairly consistent and convincing.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Let’s stick to the topic guys.

I still think although Professor Sweeney’s article contradicts what he said to Pat Kenny slightly he’s been fairly consistent and convincing.

Let's stick to the topic, Lag. Show us the research. You were very sure of it yesterday, enough to throw some insults around. Now you're reviewing it? :rolleyes:

Gaoth Lag

Insults? Show me where I insulted anyone?

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Let’s stick to the topic guys.

I still think although Professor Sweeney’s article contradicts what he said to Pat Kenny slightly he’s been fairly consistent and convincing.

Why should he contradict himself? Surely the facts are the facts and he's very sure of them. Is there a chance that maybe he changes them slightly each time, the same way as those false predictions dense posted yesterday?

The effects on Irish weather he refers to are forecast to be minimal. Of course in an Indo article they must be conflated for effect, but in reality it's a non-story.

Gaoth Laidir

Gaoth Lag wrote: »

Insults? Show me where I insulted anyone?

You got a warning for it, which you accepted

Gaoth Lag

I don’t think it was a deliberate contradiction, when you give that many interviews there’s bound to be a blip or two.

Now, where are those insults?

Gaoth Lag

The warning wasn’t for insulting anyone.